Bind Basni Prasad, J.
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit on the foot of three hypothecation bonds for the recovery of Rs. 7,911-14-0. The first bond was executed on 14th September 1931 for a sum of Rs. 700/-. The second is dated 22nd December 1932 for Rs. 2,250/-. The third is dated 13th April 1939 for Rs. 800/-. The same property is hypothecated in all the three mortgages. Pearey Lal and Mt. Bhawani alias Mt. Gobindi are the common mortgagors of these three transactions and Lala Bhamandal Das was the common mortgagee.
2. The suit was resisted on a number of grounds and no less than eight issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge. In the present appeal, however, we are concerned with only one issue, namely, whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the term as defined in the U. P. Agricultures' Relief Act. The learned Civil Judge has held that the defendant-appellant is not an agriculturist and so he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act.
3. It appears that one Tika Ram was the original owner of the two mortgaged houses and a proprietary grove. This grove is assessed to a land revenue of Rs. 2-3-0 only. On llth February 1915 Tika Ram made a will of his properties. He had no male or female issue. Mt. Bhawani was his permanent mistress and Pearey Lal defendant is his nephew. By the will he made the following provision in respect of his properties:
'After my death Mt. Bhawani, my kept wife, and after her death, Pearey Lal, my nephew, will be the owner in possession of all the property mentioned in this document. Mt. Bhawani shall have no power to make any kind of transfer or to sell or gift or endow it. So long as she is alive, she will enjoy the income of the property such as rent etc. After the death of Mt. Bhawani, Pearey Lal, aforesaid, shall have all kinds of power to transfer the property in respect of which this will has been made.'
4. It is evident from the above that by the will Mt. Bhawani was given a life-estate in the property without any right of transfer, and Pearey Lal had the vested remainder. In the life-time of Mt. Bhawani, the rights of Pearey Lal in the grove were not contingent but were vested. The question then arises whether Pearey Lal defendant comes within the definition of of the terms 'agriculturist' as contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 2, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. Mt. Bhawani died before the present suit was brought. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 provides:
' 'Agriculturist' means, in all sections of the Act where the term is used, a person who, in districts not subject to the Banaras Permanent Settlement Regulation, I  of 1795, pays land revenue not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- per annum.'
The third proviso to this sub-section runs as follows :
'Provided further that if a non-agriculturist joins with an agriculturist in any transaction of loan, save for the purpose of adding his name as security, the agriculturist shall not be considered as such for the purpose of that transaction.'
5. An essential condition for a person to be an agriculturist Under Section 2 (2) (a) is that he 'pays' land revenue. As in the life-time of